We have to take a step back and ask ourselves, “Why do I believe in this?”
List any personal influencing reasons why it sounds better to you to believe in the belief you hold to.
The meaning of specific words in the Hebrew PLUS in the NT Greek.
I would encourage Gap Theory Propnents here to challenge your belief by looking at the reasons here that refute a Gap Theory type belief.
What Is the Gap Theory? (The Ruin and Reconstruction Theory?)
OK, I read every point associated with the Gap theory and every point that tried to refute the gap. The difficulty side made a whole lot of assumptions that are not valid.
The list of points FOR a gap are quite legitimate and based on the FACTS of what words mean.
1. "waw" is a conjunction and is used for both "and" and "but". But since the Septuagint translates v.2 as "BUT" we need to understand those 70 translators understood the Hebrew far better than any scholar today.
2. "hayah" I've taken the time to research from biblehub.com how many times the exact for of that word in v.2 occurs in the rest of the OT and how the various translations rendered it. From the difficulty side, #13, said that 'was' is the normal rendering. That is FALSE. Of the 111 times the exact form of 'hayah' occurs, it was translated as "became/become" nearly 60% of the time, while it was rendered as 'was' only 6% of the time.
3. Already noted the Septuagint.
4. tohu wabohu. I did the same with these 2 words. Most of the time they were translated as a uninhabited wasteland or words to that effect.
5,6. no comment
7. "creation vs made". From the "refutation side" point 21 said any distinction between the 2 is not valid. That is flat wrong! The Hebrew barah (create) means to create out of nothing, as in "God SPOKE the world into being". Came from nothing. The Hebrew ash (made) means to create/made out of something, which God did with Adam's physical body. But not his soul. See Gen 1;26,27. In the first verse, God made. In the second verse, God created. Different words. Different meanings.
8. Isa 45:18. This is a HUGE point. If we accept Gen 1:2 as translated, then there is a direct CONTRADICTION with Isa 45:18.
In 1:1,2 we have "God created the earth AND the earth WAS tohu".
But, in Isa 45:18 we have "God did not create the earth tohu". While some translations have "in vain" for 'tohu', the NASB has "a waste place", which fits its uses in the other verses in the OT.
The only way to fix the contradiction is to understand 1:2 as , "but the earth became tohu". And there is strong support for that translation.
9-11. various OT passages. No comment. I haven't studied them.
12. angelic fall. While it's obvious there was, we have no idea how it relates to eareth before God created Adam. So any type of explanation IS a theory.
But what isn't a theory, from the meaning of the Hebrew words, is that there IS a time gap between v.1 and v.2.
15. pre-Adamic people. This would be a theory. The Bible doesn't say.
As for the list of "difficulties":
1. "no mention of creation". Uh, what do they think 1:1 is about then? Of course there is mention of initial creation of the universe.
btw, it was very good that God excluded any information as to HOW the earth BECAME tohu. If He had done that, one can just imagine how many people would have gotten all mixed up with whatever happened, and probably applied God's actions towards fallen angels as legitimate towards people. Angels and humans are apples to oranges. No comparison.
2. "not the historical view". so what? Translators had zero context to translate v.2 properly. But comparing the words in v.2 as rendered elsewhere in the OT, the translators didn't use the MOST COMMON usage for v.2.
3. "Genesis not cryptic". Meaning that God "did not inform us" of any time gap, etc. Yes He did. The very words of v.2 tells us that the earth became tohu.
4. The point was mere assumption.
5. "contrary to Scripture". "no explicit verse about a previous creation". Fact is, there is only ONE initial creation, 1:1 is clear. v.2 tells us about the earth became something it wasn't initially. So everything that follows is a restoration of initial creation, not a new one.
6. 'no direct statement of judgment'. So what? Why does there need to be. Any judgment would have been directly at whoever was being judged, which wasn't humanity. See point 12 above.
7. "no death before sin". Animals could easily have died if fallen angels were on earth before Adam was created. In fact, Ezek 28 says that Lucifer was in "Eden, the Garden of God". After Satan rebelled, who is to say he didn't still have access to earth. We can't say either way. But we still have the Hebrew word meanings.
8. "God made the world very good". OK. That verse refers to the restoration. And God would have made the universe very good as well, 1:1.
12. "too much is made of the Hebrew "waw". No, it's very important, because that word was used both ways; as "and" and as "but". And the 70 Hebrew scholars of the Septuagint rendered it "but". They were better at Hebrew than anyone today.
13. "was or became". They claim the 'normal rendering is was', but I refuted that in point 2 above. Nearly 60% of all uses of that exact same form used in the rest of the OT it was rendered as "became/become".
14. "unformed unfilled" per 'tohu wabohu'. As already shown, most of the time those words are translated as a desolated wasteland or an uninhabited desert/waste place, or words to that effect.
16. "Jesus did not believe in any gap from original creation to Adam", and Mark 10:6 was cited. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ My lexicon says this for the word "creation": "properly, ro reduce from a state of disorder and wildness". Hm. Exactly how Gen 1:2 sounds from the proper translation of the key words.
My lexicon refers this word to ‘ktisis’. This Greek word is found under ‘κτίζω’. Under this word we read: “to reduce from a state of wildness and disorder”, from Bagster & Sons lexicon.
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2936: κτίζω
κτίζω: 1 aorist ἔκτισα; perfect passive ἐκτισμαι; 1 aorist passive ἐκτίσθην; the Sept. chiefly for בָּרָא; properly,
to make habitable, to people, a place, region, island (Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, Diodorus, others); hence to found, a city, colony, state, etc.
So from 2 independent Greek lexicon sources, this Greek word for ‘creation’ refers to a creation from a state of disorder and wildness. Or, to make something habitable that wasn’t habitable before.
Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament notes that in a long dissertation of κτίζω, that “in the religion of many peoples chaos stands at the beginning of being and becoming”.
The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, by Balz and Schneider Eds. makes notes that “the OT creation narratives are most intelligible within the framework of ancient Near Eastern views, each motif has parallels.
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology & Exegesis, by Sylva, notes that κτίζω is used in the the Septuagint for the rebuilding of Jerusalem in Ezra 5:17. It further notes that the word group for κτίζω is used always of divine creation, with 1 exception, in 1 Pet 2:13.
Silva also connects κτίζω with the believer being a new creation. This point is also noted in Kittel’s text. This parallels the restoration of the earth in Gen 1 with regeneration of the believer.
The major mythologies (Greek, Roman and Norse) are all parallel accounts, with the names changed among the 3, which is best explained by understanding that Genesis 6 involved fallen angels contaminating the human race, which led God to destroy it, save 8 people; Noah and his family.
In a similar way, the account of creation from Adam and Eve was passed down among the generations. So the common thread of “chaos” in so many different religions would have come from what Genesis 1:2 actually says in the original, not in how every English translation renders it.
17. Isa 45:18 Already discussed above. Common translation is contradicted by Isa 45:18. The proper translation removes any contradiction.
21. "no distinction between create and made". See 7. above.
22. Ezek 28. "more likely a heavenly place". That is presumption. 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; Why would there be an Eden, a garden in heaven and also on earth? The obvious fact is that Satan was in the garden of eden even before he rebelled.
23. "time of judgment of angels not specified". Of course not. Why would God mix up history of angels with history of humanity? It would have caused all kinds of confusion and weird religions.
26. "God's failure". Well, let's consider the pre-flood world. Did mankind fail there? Sure did. And God wiped them all out, except 8. How about end times? Does mankind fail there? Sure will. And God will wi;pe them all out too. Except all resurrected and raptured believers. Who will reside for eternity on the new earth.
Just saying.
Don't just throw these reasons aside as if they need to be ignored or you need to refute them.
I ask you to do this with my responses.
Actually consider that they may be true and seek out the truth on both sides on this matter and see what makes more sense in God's Word as a whole.
Fair enough. Been there, done that. Amen.
btw, I was disappointed that Heb 11:3 was not mentioned, which provides more understanding.
"By faith we understand that the universe was formed (katartizo) at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."
'katartizo' has these meanings:
to adjust thoroughly, unite completely, to prepare, to complete, adjust to fit,
to repair, refit, a complete adjustment. The bolded words support a restoration.
Personally, an Old Earth aligns with more of the secular world that seeks to explain away God.
Yes, it seems Ken Hamm of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum cannot separate an old earth from evolution. He treats any old earth idea as coming from an evolutionist. Well, he is wrong. While evolution demands an old earth, an old earth does NOT demand evolution. Especially an old earth with a time gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2.
Surely wordly Scientists do not have everything correct when it comes to the age of the Earth. I don't get any clear idea that there is a Gap Theory when I read the Bible. It's not obvious.
It's not obvious because Gen 1:2 was very poorly translated. And I do not blame the translators. They had nothing to work with, other than v.1. But since God said NOTHING about what occurred between the 2 verses, we only have theories about what might or did occur. However, v.2 stands clear that something DID happen to earth and God katartizo'd it. Excuse my Greek.
So if it was really important, then why did God not make it obvious in His Word?
This is assumption. I claim He did in 1:2. You just have to dig in the original to find it.
What advantage does God have to hide this truth from those who read the Bible plainly?
By avoiding a whole lot of confusion. Can't you imagine the confusion if God revealed all His dealings with the rebel angels? Just imagine all the irrelevant "doctrines" that man would apply to humanity. I'm glad He didn't.
